Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Chain-link gates block the portals to Yucca Mountain, although this one at the north portal has an open padlock during a recent visit. About 1,600 people work at the site, mostly scientists testing to see whether the site is viable and safe for waste storage.
Monday, Oct. 13, 2008 | 2 a.m.
Reader poll
Atop Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, signs warn of possible radiation near a test well.
One thousand feet underneath Yucca Mountain is the horseshoe-shaped tunnel into which waste would be carried for disposal, should the Energy Department's plan for the dump be approved. Ventilation pipes jut out from its portals.
Sun Archives
Today, the Yucca Mountain project is a horseshoe-shaped tunnel under 1,000 feet of an unimpressive peak in Southern Nevada.
It’s 60 miles as the crow flies to the lowest point in the continental United States, Badwater in Death Valley National Park. From Yucca’s ridge it is also possible to see the highest point in the continental United States, Mt. Whitney, as well as ancient volcanoes and a major fault line.
Chain-link gates bar entrances to the tunnel.
Since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid led Democrats in cutting funding for the project again and again, the workforce at the mountain has dipped to 1,600, down from 2,750. Yucca Mountain Project workers seldom go into the tunnel, which has giant ventilation systems snaking from its depths.
The workers are geologists and hydrologists and other scientists performing tests to help the Energy Department prove Yucca will work and be safe.
With the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decision this summer to begin considering the department’s application for a license to open Yucca for business, the project may well be back on track for approval.
Unless the next president intervenes.
Democratic nominee Barack Obama opposes the project and has said he will withdraw the Energy Department license application.
Republican nominee John McCain supports the project if it is safe and environmentally sound.
Those positions seem clear enough. But in reality, the future of the project will remain uncertain regardless of who is elected.
If McCain wins
If McCain argues, as President Bush does now, that scientific and environmental issues can be dealt with, Yucca may have a clear path through the administration at its most crucial moment: while the NRC is considering the license.
But the license and the project itself would by no means be guaranteed. State and congressional opponents will continue the tactics that have drawn out the process for two decades.
Bob Loux, former executive director of Nevada’s opposition organization, the Nuclear Projects Agency, says even if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves the license application in four years, as long as Democrats retain control of Congress, construction will never begin at Yucca.
“Budget stalling — that’s their best strategy,” said Eric Herzik, chairman of the political science department at the University of Nevada, Reno, and an avid follower of the Yucca debate. “Stall until someone gives up.”
One other point: McCain said in a Las Vegas interview during the campaign that he opposes shipping the waste through Phoenix, in his home state of Arizona.
The McCain camp has said the comment was taken out of context or was made in confusion. McCain appears not have understood the question. Nevertheless, environmental groups have seized on the gaffe.
Campaign spokesman Rick Gorka explains that McCain “doesn’t want it transported through any cities if it’s not safe. It doesn’t matter if it’s Phoenix or Las Vegas, if it’s not safe ... he doesn’t support it,” he said. “He doesn’t want to put any community at risk.”
If Obama wins
Herzik questions how much of a priority killing Yucca would be for a freshly minted Obama administration, because the issue doesn’t register with national audiences. Herzik said that although Obama has been clear that he opposes Yucca and has said that he would shut down the project, it is less clear how quickly or thoroughly that will happen.
Obama’s Nevada spokeswoman, Kirsten Searer, says the issue would rank high with the candidate.
“He understands how dangerous this would be, for nuclear waste to be transported and stored in Nevada,” she said. “It’s something he would take a look at as soon as he’s in office.”
Obama’s concern is safety, especially in the transportation of waste from nuclear sites across the country, Searer said. Transporting nuclear waste long distances to the mountain over outdated rail lines and roads would be too dangerous, she said.
If Obama does yank the license application, the project will wither but not necessarily die. That’s because the congressional act that requires the government to pursue a nuclear waste repository at Yucca remains in place, no matter who is president and whom he appoints as secretary of energy, said Allen Benson, an Energy Department official.
As Herzik explained, the secretary of energy “could pull the plug, zero out the budget. But Congress does have the ultimate say because the Nuclear Waste Policy acts of 1982 and 1987 designate siting of a repository specifically at Yucca Mountain.”
If Democrats are successful in widening their majority in Congress, amending or repealing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act might be possible.
If the act remains in place and years from now Republicans win control of Congress, Yucca could be resurrected.
“It would be interesting if President Obama were to say, ‘I’m canceling this,’ and if members of Congress said, ‘Wait a minute. This is our law.’ Then you’re back in court,” Herzik said.
Right now, the Democrats control both the Senate and the House.
If Pelosi and the Democrats did not want one penny of funding for Yucca then they could not allow any bill with Yucca funding to come up.
Instead, the Democratic controlled sub-committee voted, just last month, to fully fund Yucca.
If Obama gets elected then there will be absolute no excuses for Obama for not shuting down Yucca.
Surely, either Obama can pull the license or he can convince his own members of his own party not fund or even better he can veto.
I believe this is all a dog and pony show by Obama.
The Democrats want Yucca and they do not care about Nevada.
Obama has voted for Yucca in the pass. If he gets he then he will make up something and lie like he does on Ayres, Rezko, the baby born alive from botch abortion and his own crazy spiritual mentor.
If he is elected then four years later the Sun will be covering his butt about his failure to stop Yucca.
Let's see, prevent all nuclear power plants and watch Nevada go bankrupt as the visitors dwindle to nothing, or fund energy development and succeed. We killed the nuclear industry because of a movie just like we eat at the global warming myth while Idaho just received the earliest snow since records began in 1898.
I thought they decided to stall on Yucca to let those government-contract companies keep raking in the billions. How long has it been? How many billions? The companies doing the work don't want it to be done, ever. Another government fiasco. And we're going to turn around and walk away from it, after all that time and money, with no evidence that it's not the best place to store waste that's being stored in more volatile, temporary situations? Our politicians ought to be negotiating for a chunk of money to residents of Nevada for having it here.
Herzik said and the the Las Vegas Sun agrees "It would be interesting if President Obama were to say, 'I'm canceling this,' and if members of Congress said, 'Wait a minute. This is our law.' Then you're back in court," .
This would require that as one of his first acts as President, that Obama violate the NWPA law.
Don't forget that this project is paid for by nuclear power ratepayer not taxpayers. If Barack Obama slow walks or cancels meeting the NWPA then the private NEI representing ratepayers, can then sue in court, can take the $20 billion back, and can complete the project.
It has always been the case that if Obama, Reid, and Pelosi don't like the NWPA then going to Congress and changing the law is the quickest way to get an agreed upon alternative course (reprocessing and/or on site storage) of action for the United States.
DOE has repeatedly admitted that is an option.
But note, the U.S. government is losing all utility lawsuits concerning the transfer of spent fuel ownership resulting in billions of dollars in settlement liability ($7 billion by 2017 and $11 billion by 2020) to the taxpayers.
This also will require the federal government to return the more than 20 billion dollar they have taken from the utility ratepayers.
The only question is why are Senators Reid, Clinton, Obama, as well as Pelosi afraid to take this on.
In today's lack of energy security environment with $700 billion petro dollar going overseas, then there maybe an outcry to keep Yucca.
I am glad that Gordon has properly stated that the Democratic Party, who are in charge of the House and the Senate, is for Yucca and against Nevada.
Obama is the leader of Democratic Party. Too bad, he is not shown and is not showing any leadership to push his own party to be against Yucca.
Obama is a weak leader.
There is a lot of rhetoric about whether or not Yucca Mountain is safe. The purpose of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission scientific review of the DOE license application is to provide an independent assessment of this question, specifically, to determine whether Yucca Mountain can meet a one-million year safety standard that is vastly more stringent than anything the U.S. requires for the disposal of chemicals.
The reason that the scientific community and Congress will not support withdrawing the license application is that this would allow politics to trump science--and those who advocate withdrawing the application should think about what this implies about the strength of their argument.
The largest problem with Yucca Mountain is not its ability to meet a million-year safety standard, but instead is with our policy for how to use Yucca Mountain. The best approach is for Congress to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to recognize that the best long-term solution for spent fuel is reprocessing, and that Yucca Mountain is really only needed for much smaller amounts of U.S. defense wastes and for residual wastes from reprocessing.
Congress needs to act, not to derail the current NRC review process, but instead to change our policy for how to use Yucca Mountain.
Gordon you failed to discuss the real point.
If Barack Obama slow walks or cancels the project Barack Obama will be violating the NWPA law.
This project is paid for by nuclear power ratepayers not U.S. taxpayers.
If Barack Obama slow walks or cancels then the private NEI representing ratepayers,
-can then sue in court,
-can take the $20 billion back,
-and can complete the project.
Courts are on the side of the already litigated legally binding contract made as part of the NWPA.
What goes up may come down, and what goes down may go up. 700 billion or 385 billion petro dollars should be Zero dollars lost every year from our economy.
Nance:
You seem determined to miss the points of other bloggers in here.
Once again, as stated by others, the repository is opposed by BOTH parties in Nevada, and supported by BOTH parties in other states.
The real question has to do with proportions. By and large, Republicans from other states support the repository, whereas fewer Democrats from other states support the repository (typically owing to an anti-nuclear stance in general).
If you take the siting vote in 2002 as an example, here's the breakdown:
Passes Senate by vote of 60 to 39
Passes House by vote of 306 to 117
In the case of the House vote, 203 Republicans voted "yea" and 102 Democrats voted "yea."
So, while Republicans tend to favor the repository more than Democrats, the latter still contribute significantly to the majority votes that the Yucca Mountain Project has always received.
You do not understand on the house or the senate works.
The party in control of the House has absolute control of what bill gets brought to the floor.
The Democratic Party leadership choosed to bring to the floor the "Screw Nevada" bill.
The same is true today. If the Democratic leadership choose not to fund Yucca then no bill will be brought to the floor.
Obama has failed to be a leader within his own party and to stop funding Yucca.
Perhaps, Obama is not really that "opposed" to Yucca after all.
He has not chosen it to be a priority in his dealings with his own party.
Yucca will kill the ecomnomy of Nevada. The science is so flawed that there will be an accident. The first will probably be transpotation related. That will make world news and no one will want to live in, let alone visit southern Nevada...
While Harry Reid can use his position to block any pro-Yucca legislation by keeping it from coming up for a vote (as well as cut its budget), he cannot single-handedly get any anti-Yucca legislation through the Senate, let alone the House. Thus, he would not be able to make congress amend the NWPA, or undo the 2002 Yucca vote, unless he actually had the votes.
He doesn't have the votes now, and won't have them after the election either, given the strong bi-partisan support that exists for Yucca, and nuclear power in general. A large majority of Senators, of both parties, want the waste out of their states.
It's also unlikely that he would pull the license application, for the reasons given (above) by pfpeterson. It would be impossible to argue that it was anything other than politics trumping science. It would also cost a tremendous amount of political capital given the majority sentiments I discuss above. There's also the $20 billion that the govt. would lose. Finally, to not do anything and just let the process proceed would be the path of least resistence (and effort), and Obama will be a very busy man!
The whole issue of transportation risks is a complete red herring. The risks of nuclear waste transport are miniscule compared to the risks that we live with every day from hazardous chemical shipments (which are orders of magnitude greater in number, are in containers that are much easier to breach, and which often contain chemicals that would actually have a greater impact, if released). In Europre, they've already shipped ~70,000 tons of spent fuel (i.e., the entire amount that would eventually be sent to Yucca), and there has not been a single incident that involved any release of radiation.
One final point. Nuclear power can indeed help reduce foreign energy imports in the future. Nuclear can be used to charge electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. Also, a huge amount of natural gas is used in power generation. Gas production in North America will soon decline, and we will have to start importing a large amount of gas, just to use it in power generation (that could be replaced by nuclear). Any guess as to where this imported gas will come from? Almost 80% of the world's remaining natural gas reserves lie in Russia and the Middle East.
So much misinformation! The NEI represents taxpayers? Only a fool would agree. The NEI is a private organization that represents those who want to make big bucks off of nuclear energy.
Peterson, just when do you think that politics did not trump science when it came to nuclear energy? When was the first nuclear plant built in this country without public funds and how many were built in that manner? Why do you think we had Three Mile Island and Chernobyl with the subsequent investigations limited by the industry and government? Why are nuclear plants situated on major earthquake fault lines? Why was the "Screw Nevada" bill enacted? The science in the Yucca Mountain project has always been infected with politics. When the potential storage site could not meet the scientific standards, the scientists either changed the standard or falsified the data. So you want to trust the findings of either the NRC or the DOE? I don't think so! It is Nevada's office that was headed by Pete Loux that produced the valid scientific information, not the federal agencies.
Yes, there are both Republicans and Democrats who support and oppose putting nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. It was a Democrat Louisiana Senator who authored the original "Screw Nevada" bill. Yet, it is the Republicans, those stalwart protectors of states' rights, who continue to support the nuclear industry in droves. It is difficult to find a Republican legislator who is not from Nevada who is not in the pockets of the nuclear industry (e.g., that men's bathroom footsie player from Idaho is one of their strongest supporters). On the other hand, many notable Democrats have supported Nevada in opposing the nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain.
And jfnance32, it is clear from your posts that you are at least as interested in opposing Obama as you are in promoting the nuclear repository. You might also read the other posts a bit more attentively (I wouldn't want to accuse you of intentionally misrepresenting what others have said). Gordon has not said that the Democratic Party is against Nevada. It is you who is against Nevada (and the entire country, for that matter). Come to think of it, you probably did intentionally misrepresent what Gordon said. It would be par for the course.
Nowoolinmyeyes places greater trust in the "valid scientific information" about Yucca Mountain by "Pete" Loux (sic) rather than DOE or the independent NRC. Really?
He/she seems to ignore that Loux's avowed objective is to defeat the project and to corral plausible arguments that may or may not be supported by facts to raise doubts about the repository. Loux and his team are clever and skillful, but does anyone really believe they place science above politics?
DOE has finally presented its license application supporting its contention that the repository can be built and protect the public for thousands of years as required by a very conservative radiation standard that the law requires. It will be the role and responsibility to weigh the proposal by the DOE to find "reasonable assurance" that it can meet those and other applicable laws and regulations. The State of Nevada and other stakeholders will be able to track the progress of the NRC license review and raise contentions for a properly functioning panel of judges can evaluate. Should anyone care to know more about that lengthy legal proceeding, you can check the NRC website.
In my previous note, I erred in leaving out that it is the "role and responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to weigh" the DOE proposal to build and operate the Yucca Mountain repository.
I realize that to many not involved in the details that it may not matter since some people feel, "Ah, it's all 'the government'... it makes no difference, they're all in cahoots." The respective roles of the NRC and DOE are now those of regulator and licensee. You may not believe it, but the people in those agencies do.
nowoolinmyeyes:
Again, you have demonstrated that you actually do have wool in your eyes -- the wool of State propaganda and intentional misreading of the facts.
"Only a fool" would mistake "taxpayers" for "ratepayers." What was said in these posts is that the NEI would continue to sue the federal government on behalf of RATEPAYERS, i.e., the nuclear utility customers who, through their monthly fees, fund the Nuclear Waste Fund. This fund was established to pay for a national repository, which the DOE has a statutory obligation to build and operate under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Failing to build such a repository by the statutory date of 1998 rendered the DOE liable to nuclear utilities (represented by NEI) for not taking spent nuclear fuel off their hands, as mandated by LAW.
It is the TAXPAYERS, nonetheless, who will foot the bill for these lawsuits; while the intent of Nuclear Waste Fund can be finessed and obstructed by Sen. Reid, who uses procedural and budgetary technicalities to block the Yucca Mountain Project from fully utilizing the money in this fund, the money is also more or less immune from attachment through lawsuits.
Which means that our state's congressional delegation and agencies such as Loux's NWPO, in delaying the repository, have cost TAXPAYERS hundreds of millions of dollars to date, with more coming.
How do you expect anyone to take your opinion seriously when (a) you offer no facts, but rather assertions without proof, and (b) you get the basic facts wrong (case in point, "Pete" rather than "Bob" or "Robert" Loux)?
Give me one single specimen of either (a) falsified data from the Yucca Mountain Project or (b) valid scientific information from Bob Loux's agency, and maybe I'd be willing to listen to you.
Having actually bothered to READ studies from both sides myself, I suspect you will not be able to provide such evidence. You best shot is to cherry-pick those rare portions that are factual in the already meager corpus of the State's "scientific" studies.